Quote:

 

Sherlock Holmes might have eliminated ALL the possibilities for a case like this, not just the 2 possibilities that YOU want to discuss

Chander

Jun 23 2010, 12:06 PM

Shure, don't just tell me I have been shown deceleration, show me the proof.

Chander

Jun 23 2010, 12:06 PM

A Storm

Quote:

 

Sherlock Holmes might have eliminated ALL the possibilities for a case like this, not just the 2 possibilities that YOU want to discuss

If there are more than these 2 possibilities I would like to know what they are.


Shure, don't just tell me I have been shown deceleration, show me the proof.

YougeneDebs

Jun 23 2010, 12:21 AM

There was a time when I was bewildered by the lack of ‘interaction’ in the Hez footage.
And then I learned about ‘pixels’ and I learned about ‘frame rate’.

I used to expect to see a millimeter-by-millimeter, millisecond-by-millisecond collision between two objects. I have learned that such expectations are unreasonable considering the limitations of the medium: the data-field of the pixels and the frame rate of the film.

Thanks to the good work of achimspok we know that each pixel is a data-field of about one-square-foot. One Square Foot!



Thanks, achimspok.

And the frame-rate leaves a lot to be desired: 30-frames-per-second (at best).
How far can a plane travel in one-thirtieth-of-a-second?
I’ll tell you how far – hellafar!

I have learned that my expectations exceeded the limitations of the medium.

And I have an analogy! Consider the naked eye and bacteria.
Just because we can’t see bacteria with the naked eye doesn’t mean that bacteria are fake!

That’s my 2-cents.

Have a nice day,
Debs

edit to add: achimspok's jpeg in context can be found at
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/2485637/8/#post545092
/edit

Quote:

 

Still no proof eh Chander!

Chander

Jun 23 2010, 10:14 AM

Shure sez

Quote:

 

Chander where is your proof?

There is something Sherlock Holmes said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

There are only two possibilities in regard to the Hezarkhani video: a) It is true, and b) It is fake.
But it cannot be true because the plane in the video defies Newton's Third Law by not decelerating when it hits the wall which is physically impossible. There are also a number of additional reasons that add further proof that the impact shown is impossible. Briefly, some of these are:
No reflection of plane in windows of building.
No proximity shadow of plane on building.
No bending or breaking of wing as it encounters steel beam.
No breaking or shattering of any part of plane as it hits building.
At least one frame showing the building as intact after the wing has passed through it.

Of the two possibilities listed above, therefore, a) must be eliminated, and b) must be the truth; i.e. It is fake.
QED
Proved.

Chander

 

No reflection of plane in windows of building.

Chander

Jun 26 2010, 07:54 PM

http://www.featurepics.com/online/Airplane-Reflection-548301.aspx

'nuff said.

Chander

Jun 27 2010, 04:40 PM

The photo demonstrates a reflection of a plane in a building. It is normal for objects to be reflected in glass therefore it is up to you to explain why there is no plane reflection in the Hez vid.

Chander

 

No reflection of plane in windows of building.